Originally Posted by El Bresko
My apologies, I didn't realise that they were all around the same age on the initial ****.
When I used "Said instructor", I wasn't implying that it is Lloyd I am talking about, you are right though, it's very possible they said that to make her feel more comfortable.
Lloyd may not have been condoning in this particular case but we know of one situation where He himself did not participate, but was around and actively "condoning" the activities.
It's probably a horrible coincidence as he was young and dumb, not headstrong enough to tell his drunk friends that what they were doing was wrong. Nothing else has come up aside from that so he's stayed pretty clean since then. I just have to place him under extra scrutiny based on his history..
Either way this is shocking for business. Karma for not stopping the **** in 89 I guess.
Lloyd's friend coming to his aid, who knew nothing about the 1989 incident did him a serious disservice by saying what he did. People were convicted, to call the victim a "dirty whore" or whatever he called her is downright disgusting. (assuming she didn't just exploit them cos she felt embarrassed)
It's hard to tell again without records. From what I read the only signs of a struggle was a bruise on her mouth, you had witnesses saying that the victim was egging the men on. It's literally just the word of the perps and a few witnesses against hers.
And the whole situation leaves a lot of doubt.
She went to 7 men's apartment alone and drunk with them....could be honest poor decision making but it doesn't look good.
My problem with the whole case was when I read it, it said something along the lines of...one of the jurors was quoted saying "I think she was raped but"
Rest of the quote doesn't matter. I'm incredulous to the fact that there could've been a conviction when a juror had uttered that sentence.
There's no time for guesswork when it involves people's freedom. This is how Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson get away with flagrant murder, because something in the trial happens that gives a REASONABLE doubt.
As a juror if you have a doubt, you absolutely cannot vote to convict, and this sort of thing happens WAY too often, especially in sexual assault trials.
I actually like this story because of the appropriate juxtaposition between the two cases.
The first case is an example of everything I hate about our legal system, which I firmly believe is the worst in the 1st world.
The second case is an example of what I hate about people. This is a woman who greeted these men countless times, had conversations, possibly even rolled with them, they had her trust, and when she was drunk and couldn't drive and was in need, they violently raped her. Stories like this is why it's hard to trust anyone these days.....all 15 years they do in prison will be fully deserved and if the judge goes extreme and gives them 25 to life I won't feel too bad about it....and this is coming from someone who generally thinks that way too many people are in prison for way too long for minor or victimless offenses.
Of course the juxtaposition being that cases like case 2 where it's just so heinous and despicable it leads itself to cases like case 1 where you have a questionable situation where the perpetrators are guilty before proven innocent.